Ms O’CONNOR – Would it be possible to give the committee an update on the strategic benefit payment that’s proposed for northwest landowners, which comes to a close on the 1 December? And to confirm whether it’s the government’s intention to use its compulsory acquisition powers for those landholders that don’t sign up. I think there’s about 30 at the moment.
Mr DUIGAN – Thank you. Yeah, happy to talk to that. Strategic benefits are sort of a relatively new benefit payment and it has been described, I think, as an open-the-gate payment to allow the transmission entity, in our case TasNetworks, to come on to the land, to engage with the landowner to understand what the impacts are likely to be, and to be part of the process. It’s not the primary mechanism – or it’s not even a mechanism, or it’s not even a mechanism for the delivery of compensation. That’s not what it is set for. Compensation is delivered through the LAA, the Land Acquisition Act 1993, and it is judged on a case‑by‑case basis by the Office of the Valuer‑General and takes into account a range of impacts, and is a sliding scale and is in the most part a larger quantum of payment than the Strategic Benefit Payment.
In line with what’s been done in other national jurisdictions – Victoria and New South Wales is probably the closest alignment for Tasmania ‑ our Strategic Benefit Payment is a $200,000-per-kilometre payment to landowners paid on an annual basis. It’s indexed back to, I think, 2022. It’s one of a number of payments that are made to landowners for their participation in hosting transmission. We understand that there is a greater impact on those people that do have transmission towers and lines across their property, and we need to engage with those people, to have that circumstance for the greater good, for the lights to come on in this place requires transmission across people’s properties.
Ms O’CONNOR – Can I just unpack with you then? I mean, what’s the difference if a landowner signs up to a Strategic Benefit Payment and so there’s that $200,000-per-kilometre per year –
CHAIR – No, not per year.
Ms O’CONNOR – Sorry, $200,000 per kilometre. For those land owners who don’t sign up, is it simply the compensation, or the payment if you like, that they receive through the compulsory acquisition of the necessary land and that’s the end of it?
Mr DUIGAN – Yep.
Ms O’CONNOR – Okay, and what are the latest numbers on landowners who are resistant to signing up to the Strategic Benefit Payment?
Mr DUIGAN – I don’t have – it’s a pretty dynamic situation. We’re getting close to the end of the process, and I’m not getting a daily number, but I know that it changes very regularly.
CHAIR – TasNetworks will know that answer?
Mr DUIGAN – TN will have that. But I would make the point that the best outcome for people is to have TasNetworks land agents on their property, to have their property properly evaluated. I went to Gawler recently to meet with two landowners who had been part of the process. As I say, for this transmission development, 95 per cent of it already has transmission on it, 95 per cent, and we’ve got deals with the remaining five.
In this case the towers are bigger, they’re higher, but there are fewer of them. In both of the cases I was talking to, currently 10 towers, and in both instances that would go down to eight towers. Not only that, the alignment would be better for the utilisation of pivot irrigators so they are getting better productivity out of the land, fewer towers, and getting paid a fair and reasonable sum of money for their engagement with that process and the ongoing impacts of having that transmission on their property.
I know that there are calls for people to resist and whatever else. I want those people to make sure that their goals and the best outcome for them, are aligned with the people who would seek to hold them back from the process because I’m not sure there is alignment there.
Ms O’CONNOR – I mean, is the take home message for landowners there that resistance will be futile, ultimately?
Mr DUIGAN – Look, we don’t want to acquire anyone’s land. TasNetworks has no interest in acquiring anyone’s land. But we do need an easement. This is a project. This has been the way for a long time now. Linear infrastructure, be it transmission, roads, whatever, needs to be built to serve the greater good. We try to do it in a way that to some extent recognises the greater burden placed on some people as opposed to others. It’s probably an imperfect system, but it’s the system we’ve got, and I think that the strategic benefit payment adds a layer of comfort to those people to join that process and get the best outcome available to them.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you. If we could move on to a question and a matter that I’ve asked you about before, the HIF Global plant. I noticed you didn’t rattle that off in your list of renewables projects this morning –
Mr DUIGAN – I should’ve done.
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, it’s not renewable if they’re burning wood, really.
Mr DUIGAN – It is the greatest source of renewable energy in the world.
Ms O’CONNOR – I encourage you to read the science on native forest biomass. The proposed HIF Global methanol plant and other so-called e-fuels plants will require enormous amount of energy from the grid to power. I think that the HIF Global’s about 150 or 160 megawatts.
Mr DUIGAN – I thought it was 300.
Ms O’CONNOR – No, it’s 260 megawatts. We’re already in a position where major industrials are wanting more power than we can currently give them.
Mr DUIGAN – No, we’re not.
Ms O’CONNOR – We’re not?
Mr DUIGAN – No.
CHAIR – They just don’t want to pay for it.
Mr DUIGAN – No, we’re absolutely not.
Ms O’CONNOR – Do we have enough power for these plants?
Mr DUIGAN – Yeah. Well, it’s important to recognise government policy is that these plans would bring forward generation with them. Hydro Tasmania would provide a level of firming. Obviously, variable renewables require firming for when the wind doesn’t blow. Hydro has, on its book, an amount of firming available. The reason these new loads will bring with them new generation.
Ms O’CONNOR – Just back to the question of the major industrials. I thought that the Boyer Paper Mill had been told there wasn’t enough power in the Tasmanian grid for electric conversion.
Mr DUIGAN – Absolutely not. I won’t reflect on what it may have been told at some point in time, but that is not the case as I sit here today.
Ms O’CONNOR – We are advised at a drop-in session, HIF Global told participants, when asked about whether they intended to use native forests as a carbon source for their plant, that they weren’t able to use native forests as they were required to use PEFC certified forests, of course. Native forests can be PEFC. Certified and Forestry Tasmanian forests are PEFC‑certified.
What capacity do you have as minister to make sure that any of these so-called green fuels or e-fuels plants are not using power from native forests, which I’m sure you’d understand because you’re an intelligent man, would have a negative climate impact?
Mr DUIGAN – I don’t necessarily take that view. I don’t.
Ms O’CONNOR – That’s just the science.
CHAIR – That you’re not intelligent.
Mr DUIGAN – All those things.
Ms O’CONNOR – The science on native forests as well as logging and burning’s impact on the climate is well-understood.
Mr DUIGAN – There may be somebody in the room today who can say, categorically, one way or the other. I should have done my homework after you asked me the other day about the carbon inputs into – whether it’s Bell Bay Power Fuels, HIF or whoever it might be. My understanding is that it was primary carbon source are residues from plantation forestry currently –
Ms O’CONNOR – Genuine residues, not what we have historically falsely described as residues. They were whole trees going to the Triabunna Mill, for example. Not residues. Genuine residues.
Mr DUIGAN – I am not going to be drawn on your definition of what residues are or what they are not. I don’t think they’re calling themselves so-called green fuels. They’re calling themselves green fuels. They would be here in Tasmania. They would be using renewable energy. They would be using renewable carbon –
Ms O’CONNOR – From?
Mr DUIGAN – – from trees –
Ms O’CONNOR – From?
Mr DUIGAN – – and residues –
Ms O’CONNOR – From?
Mr DUIGAN – My understanding is that plantation residues are currently unused. I wouldn’t particularly be averse to seeing some of the wood chip that sits on the dock at Bell Bay going into the Bell Bay Powerfuels Project rather than being shipped away. That would be fine. I have no problem there.
CHAIR – Same in Burnie.
Mr DUIGAN – Same in Burnie.
Ms O’CONNOR – So native forests feed stock? Couldn’t call themselves a green fuel.
Mr DUIGAN – I don’t think – and we are wandering somewhat – is there anyone in ReCFIT who knows what HIF will bill their power fuels? Have they made a commitment around their carbon inputs?
Ms O’CONNOR – And is that not something you as energy minister would be across?
Mr DUIGAN – Not as energy minister.
Ms O’CONNOR – Or someone, like your agency would look out for?
Mr DUIGAN – Well, my agency’s here.
Ms PINTO – I am advised, minister, that HIF plan to use plantation forest residues.
Ms O’CONNOR – Do we understand if they’ve found a supplier of those residues or is it a bit preliminary?
Mr DUIGAN – Yes. No.
Ms PINTO – I think they’re in active -.
Mr LIMKIN – They’re in active discussion is my understanding.
Ms O’CONNOR – Forico?
Mr DUIGAN – I do think they have MOUs with – again, I don’t want –
CHAIR – Neighbouring companies.
Mr DUIGAN – Yeah, companies in Tasmania.
Ms O’CONNOR – As a matter of principle, if we’ve got this clean, green brand that successive governments really haven’t particularly well protected, do you agree the notion that as a state we’d be felling forests, or allowing forests to be filled to supply furnaces? Not only is it a negative for the climate, but it’s actually damaging to the brand?
Mr DUIGAN – We don’t currently do that.
Ms O’CONNOR – Would you like to see us be sure that we don’t?
Mr DUIGAN – As I said earlier that bioenergy is the greatest supplier of renewable energy globally –
Ms O’CONNOR – You can’t, say that in an unqualified way –
Mr DUIGAN – Why?
Ms O’CONNOR – because what the science tells us is that there’s a whole lot of different kinds of biofuels –
Mr DUIGAN – Yeah.
Ms O’CONNOR – so the source of your feedstock actually really matters about whether or not it’s a climate‑positive or negative.
Mr DUIGAN – Anyway, we are getting into a fairly esoteric area –
Ms O’CONNOR – Not really because you’re the minister for energy –
Mr DUIGAN – Yep.
Ms O’CONNOR – and there’ll be these proponents who come forward and say, we need power for this production process –
Mr DUIGAN – Yep.
Ms O’CONNOR – and for the state of Tasmania to be able to say, we’ve got a set of standards here and we don’t believe the burning of native forests is clean or renewable.
Mr DUIGAN – Yep. I would say that anybody who is making green fuels would want their supply‑chain to be certified and that would be a matter –
Ms O’CONNOR – They do want it to be certified and at the moment it’s certified to the same standard as Forestry Tasmania, which is not reassuring.
Mr DUIGAN – To you, maybe not.
Ms O’CONNOR – You are comfortable with an industrial process here, burning natural forests for power.
Mr DUIGAN – I am not saying those words.
Ms O’CONNOR – In not so many words. You suggested it though. You did suggest it.
Mr DUIGAN – Okay.
CHAIR – Have you a question?
Ms O’CONNOR – We will confirm it.
Mr DUIGAN – As I say, they are in the business of making green fuels. They are going to want those fuels into the markets they sell and those markets they sell into will demand them to be meeting the standard they require.
Ms O’CONNOR – It sounds like it’s a pretty low standard. PEFC is not Forest Stewardship Certification.
Mr DUIGAN – Oh, but we know about that, don’t we?
Ms O’CONNOR – We know Forestry Tasmania hasn’t been able to get it the two or three times they’ve tried.
Mr DUIGAN – Certain Indonesian forest companies do.
Ms O’CONNOR – Are you talking about Ta Ann? Do you want to have a chat about Ta Ann?
Mr DUIGAN – They used to make wonderful plywood, didn’t they?
CHAIR – He’s not the m\Minister for resources so we might leave that one for the minister for energy.
Mr DUIGAN – They used to turn little logs into plywood and what a good circumstance that was.
Ms O’CONNOR – Have you seen those huge lots full of rotting plywood in the Ta Ann lots up in the north‑west?
Ms LOVELL – Chair, can I get onto a topic that –
Ms O’CONNOR – I am very happy for other people to ask questions. There just didn’t seem to be much enthusiasm for it, so –
Mr DUIGAN – I bored everyone to death.
Ms O’CONNOR – I thought I’d just use the time.
